Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-06-01
Requested 2021-05-18
Authors Edward Birrane, Alex White, Sarah Heiner
Draft last updated 2021-05-25
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -02 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Thomas Fossati (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Thomas Fossati 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-07-genart-lc-fossati-2021-05-25
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2021-05-25


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-??
Reviewer: Thomas Fossati
Review Date: 2021-05-25
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-01
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


This document defines two default security contexts (clear-text integrity and authenticated encryption) for the BPSec protocol.  The raison d'ĂȘtre of this specification is to provide basic security services for interop testing and operational use on the terrestrial Internet.

This is a very well written document.  I have checked the CBOR examples and they look good (as noted in the Nits section below, the use of CBOR Sequences might be more explicitly indicated.)  The requests to IANA are clear and actionable.

(Just a note: in my experience as an implementer -- albeit not of this particular security protocol -- I have found that relying on canonicalisation tends to make interop an arcane job.  I trust the DTN people have weighed their pro and cons and made this choice consciously.)

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

* The references to Table 7 of RFC8152 might be replaced by references to Table 3. of draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs (now in RFC-Ed queue)
* The references to Table 9 of RFC8152 might be replaced by references to Table 5. of draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs
* In Section 5.1, the name of the registry should be "BPSec Security Context Identifiers" (plural "Identifiers")
* Since the document examples make use of CBOR Sequences, it'd be worth stating that in the relevant places (e.g., A.1.3.2) -- and maybe sticking a reference to RFC8742.